Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 22, 2005 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 7 of 27 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to go ahead and move forward with the deviation in policy. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Len. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: FP 05-066 Request for Final Plat approval for 4 commercial building lots on 9.09 acres in a C-G and -L zone for Porkv Park Subdivision No.1 by V.J. Joint Venture - south of Pine Street and east of North Eagle Road: Item 9: FP 05-067 Request for Final Plat approval for 11 commercial building lots on 25.47 acres in a C-G and -L zone for Porky Park Subdivision No.2 by V.J. Venture - south of Pine Street and east of North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Items B and 9 are FP 05-066, and FP 05-067. We do have letters in front of Council from the applicant adhering to staff comments. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as you stated, we do have letters of agreement. Staff would recommend approval. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Items No. B and 9, FP 05-066 and FP 05-067. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items B and 9. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2005: AZ 05-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.02 acres to R-B zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 8 of 27 Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 05-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 single family residential building lots and seven common lots on 2.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2005: CUP 05-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and minimum ground floor square footage for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Items 10, 11, and 12 are continued public hearings from November 1 st for AZ 05-033 and public hearings on PP 05-032 and a continued Public Hearing from November 1 st for CUP 05-036. I will open Items 10, 11 and 12 with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Banff project. It's located south of Franklin by about a half mile and it's on the west side of Linder. It is as -- actually, as you can see from the zoning map it's -- actually, the parcel to the north is not annexed, nor to the south. The one to the west is an elementary school site, which you will see here. The applicant has submitted a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use approval for a planned unit development. The applicant's original request was for 21 building lots and seven common lots on 2.91 acres. The current request is for 16 single-family residential lots and five common lots, still on 2.91 acres. And this was -- this new preliminary plat was submitted September 16th. The Conditional Use Permit for the development is for -- I have a color one here. I had a color one. Somebody took it off. Okay. Sorry. It's for reduce lot size and reduced lot frontage. The lot size varies from about 4,000 square feet to a little over 5,400 square feet and, then, there is one large lot that's close to 18,000 square feet that holds the existing home on the property. And those lot sizes, the 4,000 to 5,400, are akin to the R-15 zone. The original gross density was 7.2 dwelling units per acre. In this revised plat it's 5.5 units per acre. If you take out the -- the large lot on the end, the gross density is 6.0 dwelling units per acre. The minimum requested street frontage is 45.5 feet. And there are 11 lots at approximately 52 feet. So, most of them are in that 52 foot range. The minimum for the R-8 is 65 feet. The applicant has also requested interior side setbacks that -- that there are basically seven feet between -- or six feet between garages and, then, seven feet between living space. So, you would have a total of 14 feet between two homes. All other setbacks in front show -- would be as required in the R-8 district. The main amenity for this project for the planned development is a seating area with picnic structure. They are also proposing a pathway connection to the school. We haven't heard from the school district. There is currently a chain link fence with no opening at that location. Another item of discussion was with regard to this general area of development. As you know, the city has gotten complaints that when Linder is blocked off there is no access to these homes from another route. The planning department is working to connect a stub street that's right Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 9 of 27 underneath the E -- sorry about that. It's right on that compass symbol. That would be not a permanent access, right now it's just a temporary access. It would come from Waltman, which is a -- kind of a constrained intersection, so it would get emergency to there, but we are not clear on when there will be a permanent road access to their full access. So, in the initial recommendation staff did recommend denial due to the number of planned development requests for exceptions to the dimensional standards, the lack of transitional lot sizes. As you see with the surrounding properties, this one did annex and split. They are larger lots. And there is various developments around them, mostly larger lot sizes than what's being proposed, but immediately north and south there is -- there are no smaller homes. And staff was always concerned with this very narrow one, how it would redevelop in the future. The lack of on-street parking, given the lot size in the area, and also the possibility of impeding future development, which is the one to the north, as I spoke. We do have elevations. The units being proposed are quite attractive. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial of all the applications. As you know, the preliminary plat originally kind of stops once it's been denied at the Planning and Zoning Commission, but the applicants filed an appeal. The effect of that appeal was to have that preliminary plat included as part of your decision tonight. This has had a number of hearings at the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm just going to hit the dates, just -- just so you know. It was originally heard on August 4th, then, August 18th, September 18th, and, then, August 6th. At those hearings Dave McKinnon and Scott Beecham spoke in favor of the application. Jerry Hihath, who lives off of Linder, spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the density of the site in relation to the surrounding properties, the size of the lots in relation to the surrounding properties. The Linder Road access and future developments along Linder Road prior to the overpass being constructed. Lack of fire protection south of Ten Mile Creek. The fact that the project is not an in-fill development. The submission of the planned development for a very small site. Future problems for annexation and development of adjacent properties. And the lack of public road access to the parcel north of the site. The key Commission changes to staff's original -- the original recommendation were that the Commission added the finding that the project is premature for development in the general vicinity until such time as the Linder Road overpass is operational and the nearby undersize parcels have a development plan. And with that I will end staff's presentation. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: Madam Mayor, I do. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, what size lots are these? Four thousand -- Canning: They range -- the smaller ones range from 4,000 to -- to 5,400. And, then, the large one on the end is close to 18,000. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 10 of 27 Bird: And you're recommending denial of this? Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions. Is the applicant here? McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, Meridian, Idaho. Well, Happy Thanksgiving. Get that out of the way really quick. I wish I had the color drawing. You guys all -- I handed out copies of the color drawings to everybody. Hopefully you have got those. I brought them over to Barb today and she tried to put those on. Obviously, it didn't work out really well. So, Anna, can you go to the aerial real quick. I'll get to the nuts and bolts of this project real quick. Start off with the aerial and we can talk a little bit about the color drawing here in a minute. What we have, basically, is a 2.91 acre piece of property, the black outlined area right here, adjacent to Peregrine Elementary. Anna pointed out that she hadn't heard comments back from the school district. I, actually, went in and sat down and talked with Eric Exline and met with Wendell Bigham, said tell me a little bit about the school, whether or not you guys would like to see an access from this site to that and they said, absolutely, we support that, and we would like to see an access from whatever develops there to come over. And I said so what's the capacity like at that school, are we going to be adding a whole lot of kids to the school and he said, you know what, Dave, it's kind of funny, this school is built for 650 and we have got 600 kids in it. It's one of the only schools in Meridian that's actually operating under capacity. So, we actually have a school in the City of Meridian that's actually operating under capacity and they said it would be great to have a few more kids. But the more we talked about it, the more we decided that this type of development probably wouldn't increase the number of kids, because of what we are trying to do with this development. It's not a development to try to attract more and more families to the City of Meridian, it's to provide people with options in the City of Meridian. Right now there is a whole lot of family housing in Meridian, not a lot of step down housing for people that want to have a smaller home that's nicely appointed. There is not a lot of homes available for first time buyers the way prices have gone up in the City of Meridian. It's rare if you can find a house in the City of Meridian now for under 200,000 dollars. So, we decided to take a look at this piece of property. Obviously, Scott and I got excited when we saw this piece of property, saw it has some potential. The Comprehensive Plan says this piece of property should be developed at three to eight units per acre. But when we first saw this piece of property and the way it was listed with the real estate advertising, was it included this property to the north, the 66-foot wide piece of property. If you add that 66 foot wide piece of property to this site you would have over 250 feet in width, which makes it perfect for development, because you can put a 50-foot right of way down the middle, 100-foot deep lots each direction off of that. A double loaded house -- double loaded street, deep housing, it would have worked great. But the people to the north, after the offer was made, decided they did not want to sell. We have made attempts since that time to work with them to try to bring them in and say we'd really like to work Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 11 of 27 with you on this site. They don't wish to develop. We have no hammer to force them to come to the table and develop with us at this time. Sixty-six feet wide makes it very difficult for them in the future to even bring a road in. The smallest road section you can have in the City of Meridian is a 42-foot wide right of way with a 29-foot street section. If you do that on a 66-foot wide lot you can't make it work. So, we decided to try to work with that and work around it. We have done a few things with the layout with that. So, we lost this piece up here, couldn't force that to happen. The property to the south is owned by a elderly widow, the Hihath's mother. You mentioned that Jerry was here to testify. He's not here tonight. I talked with him on his cell phone a couple days ago. He's out of town, but his brother is here tonight to testify. The mother would like to stay in this house. It's where she's been years and years. We can't force them to develop. So, we have got a piece of property, someone who wants to sell. The land is, obviously, worth more for development than it is as a piece of property that's three times -- over three times as long as it is wide. This piece of property is just under 200 feet wide by itself and over 639 feet in length. If we can go to the -- the next slide. Canning: Mr. McKinnon, I have the color photo, if you would like that or do you want -- which one do you want? McKinnon: Color would be great. Thanks, Anna. What we decided to do with this -- and this -- actually, we met an awful lot with staff, we met with the neighborhood -- as you remember from what Anna said and what your report says, we originally tried to get 21 units onto this site, tried to maximize this site out, tried to get everything we could out of it. Had a meeting with the neighbors and a few of the neighbors we aghast at the density after we submitted and we said, all right, let's pair it down. So, we came back at one of our P&Z meetings and we said, all right, let's go down to 18. At that meeting P&Z said let's make it a little bit smaller, let's try it again, let's get rid of one more on the north, one more on the south. So, we narrowed it down to 15 more units on this site, with the one existing house. Lots and lots of discussion with staff about what we can do with this 66-foot wide piece of property to the north. There is an existing house directly to the north here. We have got a small narrow entry here. We have provided an access, basically, a cross-access here to provide access, so they won't have to access it off of Linder Road in the future and at staff's recommendation we added a hammerhead at this location, rather than a stub street, and provided the cross-access at this point to allow the two properties -- to allow two lots to develop on the north. We tried to take care of the north. On the south it's over five acres. It's easily developable on its own, but we did bring some pictures of how it could develop, if you would like to see that, so you can see what the whole area would develop like in the future, if you'd like to see those in a little bit. Now back to the design of this site. Like I said, when we were talking to the school district -- what we are trying to attempt here is to do something a little bit different, provide something that's not necessarily -- we don't see a whole lot of in Meridian -- is detached housing on smaller lots. Not everybody needs to have an 8,000 square foot lot and not everybody wants to take care of a large yard, not everybody has a need for a large yard for kids to play in. So, we have got something that's minimum maintenance on the outside, but a high amenity product on the inside, something that's a very nice house, but not necessarily large. And that does two things. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 12 of27 One, because it's smaller and it's on smaller pieces of property, it makes it affordable for people that want to move into this. The second thing it does is provide that option. You don't have to live in Meridian and live on an 8,000 to 12,000 square foot lot like you see in most of the subdivisions around it. In addition to that, this density actually comes in to about 5.5 units per acre. The original staff report says 6.19, but since we have reduced it by five, from 21 to 16 lots on this site, it's actually about 5.5, which falls in that mid range between three and eight units per acre. So, we have got these lots. Now, we are kind of ahead of our time and behind our time at the same time. Anna pointed out that the R-8 zone, when we submitted, was 6,500 square foot minimums. Since we submitted you have adopted a new Unified Development Code and the Unified Development Code allows in the R-8 zone a 4,000 square foot lot if you have attached housing. So, we talked to your staff about that. If we were to attach these houses together and make them duplexes, they would meet your requirements of your city code, without the requirements of a planned development. So, we were ahead of our time by having smaller lots in the R-8, we are behind the time, because we submitted before that got adopted. But if you were to look at this, attach these units together, you would have a subdivision that would actually meet all the requirements of the R-8 zone without the need for a planned development. But we also felt that -- and with our neighborhood meetings, that -- and working with staff, that a detached project would be more acceptable. If we could take a look at the detached product, Anna. Just go back to those elevations. We have tried to create a cottage product that would, actually, be a very livable product. We have asked for some reduced side setbacks and we have asked for reduced street section, so that it feels closer the street and you come in a little bit closer. This is not the type of development you would see on very large lots. These are a much more compact development style, with the garage on the ground floor, tried to keep that from pulling out to the front, and bring a patio out to make it more livable to the street and that's part of the reason for the reduced street section, besides cutting down on speed of traffic. Anna pointed out that there would be some reductions in on- street parking and there would be a -- it would be restricted to parking on one side of the street and we have asked for parking to be allowed on the south side of the street. We have worked with ACHD on that. So, what we are really trying to do is take a small piece of property and create what would be a neighborhood feel, but in a small area, something that would provide something different than what you see in the City of Meridian right now. Numerous discussions with your Commission. It went back and forth. If you have read the minutes, the chairman felt that he was in objection to this project because it had access to Linder. He didn't want this piece of property to have access to Linder. Unfortunately, that's the only access that we have got to this site. And so if we could go back to the aerial, Anna. What we have tried to do -- we know that Linder Road in the future is going to be a five-lane road, there is going to be an overpass down here. Forty-eight feet from center line, 96 feet of right of way. It's going to be a big road. And so what we have tried to do is shelter the housing behind the existing house and to bring the road in and, then, jog it around. It was an amenity at this location on that color drawing that you have. The gazebo. That way all the housing back in there is actually off of that main corridor that will have a lot of traffic. You will have no houses that back up to that high traffic. Everybody will come off into this site and the existing house would no longer have access to Linder Road as well. We have Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 13 of 27 provided a driveway -- once you come in off the subdivision, you come in around the back side of the house and come back inside. We felt that we would reduce the number of accesses off of Linder Road and we felt it was very appropriate and it falls in line with what ACHD would like to do. ACHD approved this project. In fact, they went so far as to say 20-year work program, started here, went to the overpass, and came off Franklin and stopped at about this location, so this area was not in the 20-year work program. They felt that that was kind of odd that they would have all of the street, except for a small section and they have come forward saying they would like to purchase the right of way for the full section and they'd like for us to go ahead and build the sidewalks in front of the existing house across this whole section and we are more than happy to do that. I talked with Steve Siddoway this afternoon; he's your transportation planner, about the curb -- not curb, but the cross-access out to Waltman Lane. He said that he met with the gentleman that owns the property there, he's very happy to work with us and Steve is working with him right now on some language for that easement and he's on board to provide that secondary access out. In addition to that, off of Waltman Lane there are things that we discussed quite a bit, is that Peregrine Elementary has a roadway that connects with Whitestone Estates and that's where the sewer comes in for the Peregrine Elementary, so there is an additional access out off of Waltman further up to Linder Road. It all ties into Under eventually, but if you were trying to get out, if there was an accident here, there is still a possibility for these people to get out through the back of the school. We tried really hard on this project to do something that provides some density towards the center of the city. You guys have seen an awful lot of projects lately on the periphery of the city, that's where a lot of the green field development is. These smaller projects, these in-fill type projects -- I know staff doesn't believe this is an in-fill project, but we are surrounded by development, a lot of development, it has the feel of in-fill. It's a smaller project and we have worked hard to try to create something that's different, something that's not inexpensive, but at the same time affordable. These will be nice houses and they will have, you know, strong CC&Rs, to require that. It's small enough that we can control a builder group, so that there is not a group of people coming in and trying to build something that's not what we would like to see in this area. We had -- Jerry came in and had his opposition. Mr. Hihath. The majority of his opposition at that time was the number of houses. We have brought that down to 15. The other item of concern was that he thought the survey was off. And so I have met with Mr. Hihath on site with our surveyor and we have actually walked his property from the property pin on Waltman and Linder and a funny story about that is once we got all done with it and figured out the survey was done correctly, it turns out that years ago his father and the Larry Van Hess's father, they went out there together with a 12 inch tape measure years ago, marked it off where they thought the property line was and they were within inches using a 12 foot tape measure, measuring from the back of Waltman. So, we have spent some time with this. We have had numerous neighborhood meetings. We haven't received a great deal of opposition. The majority of the opposition, again, dealt with, you know, the number. We paired the number back, we have tried to do something with this. We have got some development alternatives. If you have some questions about that, I can show you some ways that this could be alternatively developed. We believe that this is the best use of this Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 14 of 27 property and it would be a benefit to the city in the future. We'd ask for your approval at this time and ask if you have any questions of me. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. McKinnon: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay, Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Lacy: My name is Mel Lacy, 675 South Linder Road, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Lacy: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I understand that people do not like change and we all wish that some things could stay the way they are forever. When we first decided to sell we spoke with our neighbors to the north of us, they also wanted to sell a portion of their property. But when we received an offer, they backed out. Even after having signed up with a realtor. Our neighbor to the south is an elderly widow, who, along with her children, have no intentions of selling at this time -- to sell her property at this time. My wife and I feel that we should not be penalized for their decisions. We feel that this proposed development would be -- would not be a negative change to this area of Meridian. It has many features that would compliment the school and surrounding subdivisions. We would like to be able to move forward with our future plans and dream and getting this proposal approved would allow us this freedom. We understand there are many people to consider besides ourselves in this situation and we feel that the developer has worked hard to meet everyone's concerns, questions, and also their desires. We truly would appreciate your approval of this project. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other testimony? Hihath: Good evening, Mayor. De Weerd: Good evening. Hihath: Council. I'm really not the spokesman for the -- De Weerd: If you will, please, just state your name and address. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 15 of 27 Hihath: Jim Hihath. De Weerd: Thank you. And address? Hihath: I'm really not the spokesman for the family, but since my brother isn't here, I'll do it. De Weerd: Okay. If you will also give me your address. Hihath: Well, its 755 South Linder is where my mother lives. I live on the next street, which is 1985 Waltman, which I'll show you here. I live down here. Mom lives here. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Hihath: Okay. We are really not against the development; we are against the R-8 and the R-4. We think it's a little bit too much just for 2.91 acres. And also the code says that there is supposed to be only 700 dealings per road outlet to let for fire, emergency, and all this. So, I figure if the code says it, then, we ought to stick with it. And as far as my mother goes, it's my choice to let her live there where she raised eight kids all of her life. And if you mention subdivision around her, I'm not going to get any turkey and dressing on Thursday. But we are really not against the development, other than there is too many houses. Those where I live are acre lots. The rest of them all the way around are R-4. If they would just put it like the rest of it is around there, it would be more lucrative in the future for us and for the surrounding area. The R-8 is like stacked houses, is the way I look at it. But, really, that's the only opposition we have to it. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Hihath? Okay. Thank you so much. Regardless of what happens tonight, we do hope you get turkey and stuffing. Hihath: Well, I do, too. I might have to argue it. De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Thank you. Council, any further questions for staff or discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We are already having 23 people over to the house for Thanksgiving. You're invited, so -- anybody else in the audience. De Weerd: I have a 26 pound turkey and only six people to feed, so you're always welcome at my house, too. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 16 of 27 McKinnon: Members of the Council, land has shot up in Meridian, you guys have heard the same rumors I have and it's the way the world is getting. Land's getting more expensive and we are starting to get to a point now in the City of Meridian land is going to start pricing people out of Meridian and we wanted to provide something that's affordable, something that's nice, something that's an alternative to Hubble-type development, instead of a lot of square footage for a low price, to provide something that's of adequate square footage at a reasonable price with reasonable amenities. There is a number of different ways that this property could be developed. We could do a single lane road that comes in on this piece of property. As you know we could do a half plus 12 road that would, essentially, eliminate the ability to develop the property to the north. We believe that a double loaded street with housing on both sides of the street is, actually, the most appropriate development pattern. It provides more eyes on the street and it provides a better feel for a neighborhood. We have tried to work with everybody in this neighborhood. The Hihaths believe that it is still too dense. If we were to develop this at an R-4 density, the development would not be able to work with the type of design that we have. It wouldn't work with a double loaded street. And we are asking for an R-8 -- an R-8 zoning request. And it's not so dissimilar from some of the subdivisions in the surrounding area. A lot of the subdivisions along this street here and further in Blue Marlin are 5,000 square feet in size. It's R-4, but it was done through a planned development. Those lots are only 5,000 square feet. We are in the range of the area. Your new code allows for 4,000 square feet if they are attached, 5,000 square feet if they are detached. And we have some 5,000 and we have some 4,000. It meets your new code, essentially, without going too far out of the bounds of the new code. Granted, we did submit this application under your old code. We understand that and that's why we have requested an approval for a planned development. If you have any questions of me I would be happy to answer those at this time. Again, Happy Thanksgiving and ask if you have any questions and ask for your approval tonight. De Weerd: I guess I would have a question as to -- my concern is similar to Mr. Zaremba's on the Planning and Zoning Commission and having too many accesses onto Linder, in particular when we get the overpass. By having a lot of access you create more hazards and accidents and that sort of thing. With the stub to the south, do you see that once if the Hihaths ever do sell and develop, that that could necessitate the closure of the access out onto Linder and would that be a condition you would be amenable to? McKinnon: To close that access? De Weerd: Uh-huh. McKinnon: The only concern I would have about it is to try to figure out a way to get an approved turnaround with that. Obviously, there is a way to develop this with the Hihath piece in the future and we have actually drawn that up how it could look with the limited access. The single home right now, if we were to leave it, would have the one access on Linder. There is no way to get rid of it until the property is developed right now. If the Hihath property were to develop, it could develop in this pattern. This is the exact ,.... Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 17 of 27 pattern that you see -- you saw before you tonight with 15 lots and the existing single family home. Access is to Waltman. No additional accesses to Linder. This would have a great separation of -- this is almost 200 feet down, the initial 300. So, it's going to meet the 440 that ACHD policy says from road to road on an arterial. You could do that, but, then, we start worrying about the turnaround in this area. You could shut that off in the future. I think you would want to -- if you were to shut that off, provide bollarded access back out to Linder. Right now, you know, if that's the direction you want to go, you definitely could do that. I mean it would still work. You would be taking traffic across -- or like Scott said, that may be a right in, right-out. I don't know how many -- well, as soon as Linder goes across there would be a lot of need to go right out as well. There is some alternatives in the future. De Weerd: Well, we know how those right-outs go. They still try and turn left. McKinnon: You know, Shaun might be able to back me up on this. All the people that try to turn left on Eagle Road coming out of their subdivision, that's really stopped a whole lot more since they have -- since ACHD put in some new paintings and a few other things. This is one thing you can do and I agree with you, it doesn't work. But you could bollard that off. She's laughing and you're smiling. I don't -- I missed something. De Weerd: Everyone loves bollards. McKinnon: So, yes, Mayor, there is a possibility of doing that in the future and we would be amenable to that. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Donnell: None. De Weerd: Okay. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I do have a question for staff. I know this is out of order, but I didn't have it before. So, if I could ask staff a question? De Weerd: Yes. Donnell: Anna, why is this not considered in-fill? Canning: Hold on just a moment and I'll show you. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 18 of27 Donnell: Okay. Canning: I think the exact definition of in-fill that's in the code that was in existence when this one went in said that a certain percentage of the surrounding properties had to be developed at urban densities or something of that nature. Now, the one to the north is not developed. The one to the -- the two kind of one acre lots just north there aren't really urban density development and, then, the one to the south and all this area to the south. Donnell: Thank you. Canning: I mean it's a little awkward in that it's surrounded, but it's just this one little pocket of undeveloped stuff. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I have a question that either Ted or Anna could potentially answer for me. Have we ever tied the denial of annexation of a property to a specific transportation project? And let back up, Madam Mayor. Anna, you mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission added the finding that the property would not be developable until the Linder overpass. Was that correct? Did I hear that correct? Canning: Yes. That was a concern of theirs. Wardle: That was added to the findings? Canning: Yes. Wardle: Okay. Canning: To my knowledge we haven't tied one to a specific project and perhaps Councilmember Bird or Mayor de Weerd could help on that. I think that we sometimes recommend that it's not in the best interest of the city, because there is not transportation or whatever in place to support it. De Weerd: I think it was more that you tie it to another access route. So, it's not project specific, it's more another means of getting traffic out of that vicinity. So, it could be a couple of different things, rather than just one project specific. Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was going to add onto that that I don't think that the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for denial was based or tied to any particular project, I think the lack of that project was just listed as a factor in their decision. Wardle: Thank you. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 1 9 of 27 De Weerd: Okay. Any further information needed from Council? Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Items 10 through 12. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 10 through 12. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Any discussion by Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Discussion. After having heard all the information from the applicant and public, I agree with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission in regards to the project on the density. The one thing that I would -- and I asked the question about whether it's tied specifically to that project, the overpass project. I think the project could work. I mean not willing to limit the redevelopment of this piece of property within the realm of waiting for a transportation project, especially after staff had mentioned that a safety concern could be addressed at some point with an emergency access that they are working on and the Council is working on. So, that really is the only -- certainly, I think traffic would be an issue, but knowing that the transportation plan may take some time, I wouldn't make that part of my consideration. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. And I believe Locust Grove Overpass is not a funded project, at least within the next five years. Canning: Linder, not Locust Grove. De Weerd: Yeah. I'm sorry. Linder. But as Anna stated, we have been working on the secondary access at Waltman, just to the east of all of those houses. I don't know what subdivision that is. Is that Mallard Landing? Donnell: It's Mallard Landing. De Weerd: Any further discussion? Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 20 of 27 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Just a statement on my part. The density is a little heavy, I think, for when you got 4,000 size lots. Of course, we have approved -- we have had previous ones that Planning and Zoning and the staff approved at 3,300 square feet lots. I -- and I'm sure that the property around it, regardless of what people say, I think Mr. McKinnon hit it right on the head, that the cost of land is getting so high that they have to have high density to put the pencil to it. I, for one, am getting -- I think there is places for the small lots, but I don't think Linder Road is one place at that -- out at that location. That's my personal opinion. De Weerd: Okay. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: These kinds of decisions I think are really hard, because I have a tendency to believe that that's exactly what we ought to be doing with small lots like that is to find a way to make them usable and provide housing for folks that can't afford to have bigger size lots. So, as I listened to the applicant, you know, I was -- my thinking was going more in line of approval. They look like they are going to be nice homes. I don't know about the issue of being on Linder. I mean I drive that area lot, since my daughter lives in Mallard Landing, and granddaughter goes to Peregrine. And it's like any of the other subdivisions around, when it comes time to those high use of roads, you just kind of make do whatever that is. If it's around a school -- because I certainly have watched the cars stack up to pick up their children going to and from school. I don't know. So, I'm compromised on this in my owned mind. So, because of that I don't even know how I'm going to vote. I guess I'll wait to hear the motion. Bird: I thought you were going to make it. Donnell: I'm not making it. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would move that on Item 10, we accept the recommendation from Planning and Zoning for denial on AZ 05-033, to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public comments. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 21 of 27 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is on Item No.1 0 is to deny the application. Do I have a second? Bird: I'll second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and a second on Item 10. discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Is there any Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 11. Bird: There is no need for it. De Weerd: We still need to -- Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd recommend that you take decisive action on Items 11 and 12. Specifically, on Item 11 you have to either uphold or overturn the appeal from the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of the plat. Preliminary plat. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that Item 11, PP 05-032, we uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for denial. Baird: Clarification. It was a final decision, so -- Wardle: Clarification on the motion. We uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's final decision for denial on PP 05-032. Bird: Madam Mayor, I'll second that, but I want a question answered -- De Weerd: Okay. Bird: -- from legal. Why -- if you don't -- if you approve annexation and zoning, why do you have to, then, act upon a preliminary plat? Because as far as the city is concerned, it is not under our jurisdiction. We did not approve annexation and zoning and we have always -- when we have not approved that, the others have just went by the wayside and do not want to vote on something -- a preliminary plat that I have no control of overriding or should I. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 22 of 27 Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, and Councilmember Bird, really, you have no other decision to make but to deny it and the reason that we are recommending it is so that there is a complete record. You are correct that you don't have jurisdiction, because it's not zoned into the property due to the previous denial of the annexation. However, just for the complete record, to close out the file, we are asking that you take action. If I'm -- if I'm straying from prior procedures, I will have Anna chime in here. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think what the attorney is trying to do is close out the appeal file, perhaps more than the preliminary plat file, because you, actually, have kind of two files open in one. It's very confusing and -- and this shouldn't happen again. I mean this is out of the code now, so we shouldn't be in this quandary, but -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Let me ask -- one of you two can answer this. Okay. We denied annexation and zoning; right? So, that file is gone. Anything that follows -- because we have no legal jurisdiction on the CUP or the preliminary plat, because we haven't -- denied the annexation and zoning. So, the city has nothing to do with that property anymore; right? Canning: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bird, the way the former code was structured it actually gave the authority to deny a preliminary plat request, regardless of the annexation request to the Planning and Zoning. I think that that's what we are trying to close out with the motion that's before you. And I understand your argument and I think you're very accurate and very correct, but just to close out that file and the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think we need an action from the City Council just to finalize in particular the appeal action. Baird: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if it makes it more palatable to you, you can say in your motion that due to the denial of the request to annexation, we are overturning -- or upholding the -- the appeal. De Weerd: And that's what we have done in the past, is based on the denial of annexation and zoning. Bird: The preliminary and CUP is no good. De Weerd: Right. Kind of a mute point. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just one clarification. I believe one of the questions Mr. Bird had that we agreed as a City Council to hear this preliminary plat on appeal from the Commission to make our full decision on the entire application and so with that I will amend my motion to include that the City of Meridian has denied annexation and zoning of the parcel. Meridian City Council November 22, 2005 Page 23 of 27 Bird: Second agrees. Wardle: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Don't ask me to repeat that motion. Wardle: I'm not going to. De Weerd: Okay. But you all know what you're voting on; right? Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 12. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we deny CUP 05-036. The reason for denial, the city has also denied annexation of this parcel. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Donnell, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: TE 05w010 Request for a one year time extension to record the final plat for Setter Cove Subdivision by Tealey's Land Surveying - 2100 East Leighfield Drive: De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is Public Hearing on TE 05-010. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I have been asked by the staff and by the applicant if we would table this to December 6th or if we would continue the Public Hearing to December 6th, 2005.